Teacher / Student Roles in Immersive Learning Simulations
They have been called many things: immersive learning simulations (ILS), virtual worlds, online environments, but they all refer to basically the same technology. As Schroeder (1996) first explained, these worlds represent computer-generated displays that encourage and allow the user(s) to have a “sense of being” in an environment different from the one in which they actually exist. The other defining hallmark of ILS is the ability for users to interact, not only with each other, but also with this alternate environment. This interactivity has called into question the validity of traditional teacher/student roles in educational ILS.
Background Immersive learning simulations are not new to education. As Jaffee (2003) points out, educators have been utilizing non-classroom learning environments for some time through internships, service learning and experiential opportunities. These have long been recognized as an effective means of providing students with active, relevant and real-world learning experiences outside of the traditional classroom model.
What is new in ILS is the online virtual world component, which many agree developed through the media convergence of online gaming, simulation and social networking. As the popularity of ILS continues to grow, some predict that 80 percent of active Internet users will be taking part in some form of virtual world experiences by 2011 (Kluge and Riley, 2008).
Comparisons & Contrasts to Traditional Learning Environs Many believe that learning in ILS is completely removed from classical models; however, Pfeil et al (2009) contends that the virtual learning model is not so different. Like the traditional model of learning, virtual learning also goes through the same four steps: exploration, skills and knowledge, problem defining/solving and validation. The difference is in how these are executed in an online environment.
A defining difference between ILS and traditional classroom instruction models is the interactivity available to teachers and students in an online world. As Jaffee (2003) states, they physical layout of traditional classroom space furthers the pedagogy of a teacher-centered environment. Upon entering the room, students and teachers alike fall into their traditional roles as defined by the classroom itself. If the physical room setup determines these roles, why then should those roles transcend into the virtual classroom which is without physical boundaries?
Without the classic classroom setup to physically define the interaction, teachers are no longer constrained as the “sage on the stage” but rather able to behave as mentors working alongside learners in an effort to learn and create experiences together (Gaimster, 2008). This move from a centralized control model to a more pluralistic approach enables students to take a more independent and active role in the learning environment (Kluge and Riley, 2008). They are able to form learning communities among their peers and work collaboratively in a way that transcends time and space. The instructor, then, becomes more of a facilitator than CEO of the classroom environ.
Jaffee (2003) sees this shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered environments as a dramatic change in the learning philosophy of academia. Traditional learning casts students in the role of passive receivers of information. A learner-centered model suggests that learning is an active process of engagement and understanding where the student participates in activities that resemble real-world scenarios and the teacher acts as a guide or mentor on their journey (Kluge & Riley, 2008).
This shift flattens the hierarchy that has defined traditional teacher /student roles up to this point in education. It also presents a special challenge to teachers as they must respond to more complex and dynamic learning environments, what deFreitas and Veletsianos (2010) refer to as “high-risk learning strategies.”
While the use of ILS affords the teacher less control of the learning experience in the traditional sense, it does provide more freedom for the student. When teachers relinquish control over how their lessons are sequenced in a virtual world, students gain a spirit of exploration as they move through the learning environment on their own. For many, this heightens the experience and makes the learning more playful, social and collaborative in nature (Pfeil et al, 2009).
Another difference between ILS and traditional teacher/student roles has to deal with the physical representation of participants in the learning experience. In a virtual world, people are represented by avatars, which are animated representations of themselves. A user can choose an avatar that shares similar physical characteristics with their real self, or create an entirely different, and anonymous, persona online. This anonymity can be a positive for the learning environment as it allows users to transcend the traditional burdens of gender, race and ethnicity. However, this anonymity can also lead teachers to more easily lose track of their students and hinder their ability to monitor their progress (Pfeil et al, 2009).
Avatar representation also becomes an issue when considering what is appropriate for a learning environment. As an instructor, how do you control a learning space where essentially anything goes in terms of dress (Gaimster, 2008)? Is it acceptable to show up to class in the shape of a fire-breathing dragon or super hero?
Traditional classroom norms suggest that the teacher deems what is and is not appropriate for their learning environment based on the acceptable norms of society. However, in an on-line world, who determines this acceptability? Is it up to the students or the teachers? Gaimster (2008) suggests that the group itself determine and agree upon accepted netiquette at the beginning of the class experience. This is yet another nod to the flattening hierarchy of power between teachers and students in online learning environs.
Benefits of ILS Many suggest that the immersive nature of ILS is in and of itself the biggest benefit for education. The ability for teachers and students to cross social, cultural and geographic boundaries provides for a richer educational experience for all (Warburton, 2009). The teacher’s role becomes that of the creator of the experience, rather than simply disseminating information. Imagine being able to create a virtual archaeological dig for your students, or invite them walk down the streets of eighteenth century England in what could only be described as the most fantastic field trip of all time! The teacher then creates the learning experience, encouraging and aiding their students in interaction with that experience on a personal level.
The ILS model in fact demands that teachers adopt a more student-centered, activity-based teaching practice that takes full advantage of the immersive experience and allows for a more collaborative environment for their learners. (deFreitas and Veletsianos, 2010). This, in turn, facilitates a model of active learning where critical thinking and collaboration aid in building life-long learning habits (Jaffee, 2003). More than teaching a student about a particular topic, we have given them the skills to engage in active learning. Perhaps this is the greatest role a teacher can fulfill to a student.
Works Cited deFreitas, Sara and George Veletsianos. “Editorial: Crossing Boundaries: Learning and Teaching in Virtual Worlds.” British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol. 41. (January, 2010): 3-9.
Gaimster, Julia. “Reflections on Interactions in Virtual Worlds and Their Implication For Learning Art and Design.” Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education. Vol. 6. Number 3. (2008): 187-199.
Kluge, Stacy and Liz Riley. “Teaching in Virtual Worlds: Opportunities and Challenges.” Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology. Vol. 5 (2008): 127-135.
Pfeil, Ulrike, et al. “Issues and Challenges of Teaching and Learning in 3D Virtual Worlds: Real Life Case Studies.” Educational Media International. Vol. 46. No. 3. (September, 2009): 223-238.
Schroeder, R. (1996). Possible worlds: the Social Dynamic of Virtual Reality Technologies. Boulder: Westview Press.
Warburton, Steven. “Second Life in Higher Education: Assessing the Potential for and the Barriers to Deploying Virtual Worlds in Learning and Teaching.” British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol. 41. (January, 2010): 414-426.
Teacher / Student Roles in Immersive Learning Simulations
They have been called many things: immersive learning simulations (ILS), virtual worlds, online environments, but they all refer to basically the same technology. As Schroeder (1996) first explained, these worlds represent computer-generated displays that encourage and allow the user(s) to have a “sense of being” in an environment different from the one in which they actually exist. The other defining hallmark of ILS is the ability for users to interact, not only with each other, but also with this alternate environment. This interactivity has called into question the validity of traditional teacher/student roles in educational ILS.
Background
Immersive learning simulations are not new to education. As Jaffee (2003) points out, educators have been utilizing non-classroom learning environments for some time through internships, service learning and experiential opportunities. These have long been recognized as an effective means of providing students with active, relevant and real-world learning experiences outside of the traditional classroom model.
What is new in ILS is the online virtual world component, which many agree developed through the media convergence of online gaming, simulation and social networking. As the popularity of ILS continues to grow, some predict that 80 percent of active Internet users will be taking part in some form of virtual world experiences by 2011 (Kluge and Riley, 2008).
Comparisons & Contrasts to Traditional Learning Environs
Many believe that learning in ILS is completely removed from classical models; however, Pfeil et al (2009) contends that the virtual learning model is not so different. Like the traditional model of learning, virtual learning also goes through the same four steps: exploration, skills and knowledge, problem defining/solving and validation. The difference is in how these are executed in an online environment.
A defining difference between ILS and traditional classroom instruction models is the interactivity available to teachers and students in an online world. As Jaffee (2003) states, they physical layout of traditional classroom space furthers the pedagogy of a teacher-centered environment. Upon entering the room, students and teachers alike fall into their traditional roles as defined by the classroom itself. If the physical room setup determines these roles, why then should those roles transcend into the virtual classroom which is without physical boundaries?
Without the classic classroom setup to physically define the interaction, teachers are no longer constrained as the “sage on the stage” but rather able to behave as mentors working alongside learners in an effort to learn and create experiences together (Gaimster, 2008). This move from a centralized control model to a more pluralistic approach enables students to take a more independent and active role in the learning environment (Kluge and Riley, 2008). They are able to form learning communities among their peers and work collaboratively in a way that transcends time and space. The instructor, then, becomes more of a facilitator than CEO of the classroom environ.
Jaffee (2003) sees this shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered environments as a dramatic change in the learning philosophy of academia. Traditional learning casts students in the role of passive receivers of information. A learner-centered model suggests that learning is an active process of engagement and understanding where the student participates in activities that resemble real-world scenarios and the teacher acts as a guide or mentor on their journey (Kluge & Riley, 2008).
This shift flattens the hierarchy that has defined traditional teacher /student roles up to this point in education. It also presents a special challenge to teachers as they must respond to more complex and dynamic learning environments, what deFreitas and Veletsianos (2010) refer to as “high-risk learning strategies.”
While the use of ILS affords the teacher less control of the learning experience in the traditional sense, it does provide more freedom for the student. When teachers relinquish control over how their lessons are sequenced in a virtual world, students gain a spirit of exploration as they move through the learning environment on their own. For many, this heightens the experience and makes the learning more playful, social and collaborative in nature (Pfeil et al, 2009).
Another difference between ILS and traditional teacher/student roles has to deal with the physical representation of participants in the learning experience. In a virtual world, people are represented by avatars, which are animated representations of themselves. A user can choose an avatar that shares similar physical characteristics with their real self, or create an entirely different, and anonymous, persona online. This anonymity can be a positive for the learning environment as it allows users to transcend the traditional burdens of gender, race and ethnicity. However, this anonymity can also lead teachers to more easily lose track of their students and hinder their ability to monitor their progress (Pfeil et al, 2009).
Avatar representation also becomes an issue when considering what is appropriate for a learning environment. As an instructor, how do you control a learning space where essentially anything goes in terms of dress (Gaimster, 2008)? Is it acceptable to show up to class in the shape of a fire-breathing dragon or super hero?
Traditional classroom norms suggest that the teacher deems what is and is not appropriate for their learning environment based on the acceptable norms of society. However, in an on-line world, who determines this acceptability? Is it up to the students or the teachers? Gaimster (2008) suggests that the group itself determine and agree upon accepted netiquette at the beginning of the class experience. This is yet another nod to the flattening hierarchy of power between teachers and students in online learning environs.
Benefits of ILS
Many suggest that the immersive nature of ILS is in and of itself the biggest benefit for education. The ability for teachers and students to cross social, cultural and geographic boundaries provides for a richer educational experience for all (Warburton, 2009). The teacher’s role becomes that of the creator of the experience, rather than simply disseminating information. Imagine being able to create a virtual archaeological dig for your students, or invite them walk down the streets of eighteenth century England in what could only be described as the most fantastic field trip of all time! The teacher then creates the learning experience, encouraging and aiding their students in interaction with that experience on a personal level.
The ILS model in fact demands that teachers adopt a more student-centered, activity-based teaching practice that takes full advantage of the immersive experience and allows for a more collaborative environment for their learners. (deFreitas and Veletsianos, 2010). This, in turn, facilitates a model of active learning where critical thinking and collaboration aid in building life-long learning habits (Jaffee, 2003). More than teaching a student about a particular topic, we have given them the skills to engage in active learning. Perhaps this is the greatest role a teacher can fulfill to a student.
Works Cited
deFreitas, Sara and George Veletsianos. “Editorial: Crossing Boundaries: Learning and Teaching in Virtual Worlds.” British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol. 41. (January, 2010): 3-9.
Gaimster, Julia. “Reflections on Interactions in Virtual Worlds and Their Implication For Learning Art and Design.” Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education. Vol. 6. Number 3.
(2008): 187-199.
Jaffee, David. “Virtual Transformation: Web-Based Technology and Pedagogical Change.” Teaching Sociology. Vol. 31. (April, 2003): 227-236.
Kluge, Stacy and Liz Riley. “Teaching in Virtual Worlds: Opportunities and Challenges.” Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology. Vol. 5 (2008): 127-135.
Pfeil, Ulrike, et al. “Issues and Challenges of Teaching and Learning in 3D Virtual Worlds: Real Life Case Studies.” Educational Media International. Vol. 46. No. 3. (September, 2009): 223-238.
Schroeder, R. (1996). Possible worlds: the Social Dynamic of Virtual Reality Technologies. Boulder: Westview Press.
Warburton, Steven. “Second Life in Higher Education: Assessing the Potential for and the Barriers to Deploying Virtual Worlds in Learning and Teaching.” British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol. 41. (January, 2010): 414-426.